After reading this article, I wondered why the Republican Party would do this and if anyone outside of North America even cared. What are your thoughts?
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/11/30/republicans_blocking_international_access_to_official_sites.html
Maybe they just want to save bandwidth? That is the only logical reason I can think of for doing this.
Actually, I expect it's because most of the world really dislikes the current US administration, and the GOP by association. It wouldn't surprise me at all if people try to attack their sites.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 30, 2004, 11:25 PM
Actually, I expect it's because most of the world really dislikes the current US administration, and the GOP by association. It wouldn't surprise me at all if people try to attack their sites.
Surely they would know that a dedicated intruder could bypass that point-of-origin restriction fairly easily, don't you think?
On the surface, I don't see the reason for this at all. It doesn't make sense to deny access to your policy-presentation websites, especially to those who you're trying to get to support you. Say, for example, one of the maybe 30 (if that ;) ) Canadian conservatives wants to see what the GOP is doing in the States, or a soldier overseas wants to visit the GOP website. The rationale doesn't make sense. I know you'd all love to believe that there's a simple answer, that the person calling the shots is incompetent, just another stupid Republican, but that's most likely not the case.
But without the whole picture, including the side which only someone involved with the organization or administering their servers can provide, how can you pass informed judgement on their decision?
Additionally, I don't understand your choice of title. How can this be cast as an issue of morality, or even paranoia for that matter?
Quote from: Stealth on December 01, 2004, 12:47 AM
Surely they would know that a dedicated intruder could bypass that point-of-origin restriction fairly easily, don't you think?
Indeed. Perhaps indicative of the Administration's approach to things.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on December 01, 2004, 02:31 AM
Quote from: Stealth on December 01, 2004, 12:47 AM
Surely they would know that a dedicated intruder could bypass that point-of-origin restriction fairly easily, don't you think?
Indeed. Perhaps indicative of the Administration's approach to things.
Survey says: That statement was retarded.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 30, 2004, 11:25 PM
Actually, I expect it's because most of the world really dislikes the current US administration, and the GOP by association. It wouldn't surprise me at all if people try to attack their sites.
E-Terrorism. I like it.
Quote from: quasi-modo on December 01, 2004, 02:01 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on December 01, 2004, 02:31 AM
Quote from: Stealth on December 01, 2004, 12:47 AM
Surely they would know that a dedicated intruder could bypass that point-of-origin restriction fairly easily, don't you think?
Indeed. Perhaps indicative of the Administration's approach to things.
Survey says: That statement was retarded.
I don't think it's retarded.
I was indicating that I think the Bush administration has a simplistic approach to things.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on December 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
I was indicating that I think the Bush administration has a simplistic approach to things.
Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out. Great approach. Remember Occam's Razor?
The whole talk of blocking foreign requests to stop attacks would imply tha tthe webmaster is braindead though.
Quote from: quasi-modo on December 01, 2004, 08:24 PM
The whole talk of blocking foreign requests to stop attacks would imply tha tthe webmaster is braindead though.
He's a Republican, he (or she)
has to be braindead. Which seems to be the conclusion so easily jumped-to.
Quote from: Stealth on December 01, 2004, 10:55 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on December 01, 2004, 08:24 PM
The whole talk of blocking foreign requests to stop attacks would imply tha tthe webmaster is braindead though.
He's a Republican, he (or she) has to be braindead. Which seems to be the conclusion so easily jumped-to.
Man, this is the second time you have said something and then said that is what some people think after it or something similar. For a split second before I read the rest I thought you were agreeing with that statement ;)